|
||||
|
||||
Corporate Managers, Agency Costs and the Rise of Double Taxation
Steven A. Bank University of California, Los Angeles - School of Law February 2002 FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 45 Abstract: The double taxation of corporate income is routinely criticized, but its origins have never been adequately explained. This Article traces the rise of double taxation to the problem of agency costs, or those costs flowing from the delegation of control to an agent - the professional manager - who is imbued with self-interest. Originally, shareholders acceded to managers' decision to retain upwards of 50% of corporate income because it would be taxed at a lower rate at the corporate level than it would be if distributed and subject to the high individual surtax rates (although it was exempt from the normal tax). In 1936, however, President Roosevelt pushed through a tax on undistributed profits that threatened to upset this arrangement. Business leaders hoped that subjecting distributed corporate income to full double taxation would aid in realigning management-shareholder attitudes toward the retention of corporate earnings. While others have connected the persistence of double taxation to the problem of agency costs, this Article is the first to establish that double taxation arose as a political resolution to the problem of divergent manager/shareholder views toward dividend payout policies. Working Paper Series Date posted: March 04, 2002 ; Last revised: March 14, 2002Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
© 2010 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was served by apollo6 in 0.203 seconds.